Colorado Judge Matthew Barrett Refuses Recusal in Tina Peters Case

On Tuesday, April 28, 2026, the Rocky Mountain Voice reported that Colorado Judge Matthew Barrett refused to recuse himself from the Tina Peters case, defending his sentencing calculations in a 16-page order. In his order, Judge Barrett addressed Peters’ motion to disqualify him, accepting all factual claims in the defense affidavits as true but concluding that they did not meet the legal standard for recusal.

The dispute centers on Barrett’s sentencing of Peters, with the defense challenging his letter to the governor regarding the sentence. The defense argues that Barrett’s assertion that he “chose a sentence in roughly the midpoint of the presumptive ranges” is untrue, claiming he made the sentences consecutive instead of concurrent, resulting in a total of eight years and nine months, instead of 3.5 years if served concurrently. Barrett responded in a footnote, stating his sentencing was not untruthful and was within the presumptive ranges for the felony crimes, citing Colorado statute C.R.S. § 18-1.3-401(1)(a)(V.5)(A).

The article notes that the defense’s challenge concerns the total sentence, while Barrett’s response focuses on individual sentences falling within the legal range for each conviction, without addressing the consecutive structure.

Judge Barrett also addressed the defense’s claim that his references to “podcasts,” “snake oil,” and “junk” during sentencing were extrajudicial. He argued that the information he heard during sentencing arguments and pretrial proceedings counts as judicial knowledge, even if excluded from the jury’s evidence. He acknowledged the Court of Appeals’ finding that he “obviously erred” by partially basing the sentence on Peters’ protected speech and committed to following the appellate ruling at resentencing.

With the recusal motion denied, the bond motion is now ripe for ruling, subject to a 48-hour window under Colorado law. The defense argues that the 48-hour window has already expired since they filed the bond motion on April 22. However, Barrett’s April 22 order stated he could not rule on the bond until recusal was resolved, pausing the 48-hour clock until Monday afternoon when he issued his ruling.

The article concludes by noting that regardless of whether Barrett denies the bond or fails to rule within 48 hours, Peters can appeal to the Court of Appeals. Peters has been in custody for 573 days since Barrett sentenced her on October 3, 2024.